As do I. But what Trump is doing is implementing the most venal, dumbest possible way to do this. And it still won't work, its already been tried. Any successful plan has to include financially savaging employers for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Most immigrants are only coming here for the "lucrative" job. They were running out of the country when the banks collapsed in 2008 and the economy shut down.
There's a difference between addressing immigration reform and spitefully destroying people's lives and shitcanning our economy just to make condenscending dickbags with anonymity feel smug.
Or even a legal immigrant who came here thinking Americans would come to eventually accept them and their children, but instead had Trump provide encouragement and legal indifference for another generation (20 years) of racist xenophobia against them.
And these people have every right to wish that piece of shit was dead, or at least crack jokes about him. Trump is not a good guy. Trump may not be an intellectual leader of the alt-right, but that doesn't give him the pass George W. Bush's gets for his clusterfuck of a presidency.
1) Eventually a self-sustaining human colony on Mars. Which then ensures humanity or civilization won't be wiped out by a space rock every 300K(?) years. 2) Having the self-sustaining colony on Mars also means more living area to populate with humans. Not prime real estate (unless you're dystopian), but possibly better than living in your toilet on Earth. 3) Once man can sustain themselves indefinitely outside of Earth, it may become lucrative to collect useful materials outside of Earth, process it in space, manufacture something useful in space, and then send that to Earth. Yeah, automated robots could do that too, but it may be too difficult to manage/repair those devices the further out you go for materials away from Earth.
...when all that effort could be saved by building an automated space fabrication facility and sending that to a Lagrange point, thus totally avoiding the kinetic expense landing and launching out of the Moon's gravity well.
But you can't plan to go to Mars with that plan. You have to spend decades first developing the robotics to do sophisticated manufacture in space/Moon. Then you're sending that factory to the Moon, rather than Mars. Oh yeah, there's no (known) iron or aluminum, or anything useful, other than sand (silica) to mine on the Moon. Then somehow you have to be able to mine an asteroid, when most asteroids are in an orbit farther than Mars but before Jupiter. Which means you'll probably be doing that with an automated robot as well. Unless you want to spend money developing a habitat module that can sustain human life in space/Moon without a radiation shield for about a year. And that's assuming there are asteroids with useful materials to mine within rocket distance of the Earth that is less than the distance to Mars. And where will be the savings in rocket launches or Earth materials for this scenario?
1) going to Mars from the moon would be simpler, and cheaper.
No, it would not! Based on what rationale? You'd still have to build and rocket most of those Mars station components on Earth. The Moon doesn't have known deposits of iron or aluminum to smelt and manufacture into useful devices by robots on the Moon. Even if there was enough harvestable water on the Moon, done by robot, you could still send an automated robot to Mars to do the same chore.
2) mining on asteroids would be cheaper
Again, in what sense? The only way it would be cheaper would be to process the ore on the Moon, and ship it to Earth, but it would still be even cheaper to process the ore from a space station located a a Lagrange point.
It blows my mind how people here claim to understand basic science and a layman level of engineering, but can't comprehend the basics of orbital mechanics. (It doesn't take much more energy to go to Mars rather than the Moon. They're about equal in difficulty to do at this point in space science/engineering.), or how projects require money to be developed (there's no money saved testing a sustainable hab module on the Moon, rather than testing it on Mars.) Why are people so convinced that Spain needed a colony on the Azores before they could send Columbus to the "New World"?
Guess why I think Space Nutters are misanthropic, maladjusted, religious nutcases?
Because you're a moron.
Directed space nuttery can result in new scientific and engineering knowledge that can be applied to desirable outcomes, whether its a self-sustaining colony on Mars, or abundant energy collected from satellites and microwaved to an Earth based collector, or harvestable H3 on the Moon to power a fusion power plant, or whatever.
Universal healthcare just extends the life of organic beings that has to die anyway. UBI may not even be economically sustainable or "desirable" in a capitalist society, and basically rewards people that can't do anything useful for existing. I'm not sure if a leisure society could have significantly desirable economic or cultural results. I'll withhold my condescension on that.
Maybe someone who is interested in lunar development should buy some Falcon 9 or Heavy launches and just make it happen?
People brighter than Perens with more money realize that the Moon is just a big homogenous, inert rock orbiting the Earth, currently with no significant, self-sustaining, financial enterprise to exploit. A permanent moon base would merely be a giant, useless suck of money until the rich guy/nation stops paying to sustain it. Then it would be a lifeless, inert moon base.
It doesn't take much more rocket propelled energy to go to Mars, rather the Moon. At least Mars has a better potential to self-sustain a colony there (more material to work with). Its just a matter of working out the engineering, which isn't cheaper if its done on the Moon first.
Self sustaining, in what sense? You'd still have to ship organic chemicals (dry form, of course) to act as nutrient agent for the plants you'd be growing to consume. Is there actually enough moon/space material that's readily collectable to keep producing a synthesized atmosphere and water indefinitely? And what would you be doing on the Moon that would result in interest to indefinitely fund all the materials and operations necessary to support a moonbase doing very little?
Mars on the other hand, is big and materially diverse enough to provide for the chemical agents to actually be self-sustaining. People could travel, produce & raise kids, and live their entire life on Mars, once there's a sustainable engineering model. The Moon, on the other hand, would still need regular shipments of organic chemicals to keep its hydroponics sustained. Once Earth stops paying for that, or that massive rock ends all civilization on Earth, forget about the Moon having a self-sustaining colony.
Basically, billionaires that feel old enough that they're willing to risk dying on an insufficiently tested space vehicle. (If I were old, and a billionaire, I'd seriously consider it, if I could negotiate certain preconditions.) Makes me wonder how many billionaires are willing to spend a fraction of that money to subsidize someone willing to risk Elon Musk's 2017 time schedule.
He/she could be a non-native looking forward to a prosperous life in the USA. Or he/she could be a victim of two enterprising (illegal) immigrants, and be forced to exiled from the land he/she was raised since a toddler, to a poverty stricken place where he/she can't even speak the language. Or even a legal immigrant who came here thinking Americans would come to eventually accept them and their children, but instead had Trump provide encouragement and legal indifference for another generation (20 years) of racist xenophobia against them. Either way, they're justified in hating Trump's guts.
You're the fucking moron. And a fucking Anonymous Coward to boot.
There's an added attraction for the first two people who "outspend" a seat on that first rocket: A minor note in the history books, either as the first two commercial passengers to successfully enjoy a space tourism junket, or the first two fools who overpaid to die in a space tourism junket.
K&R C could be considered portable assembly at one time (but a bloated one). Those days are long gone. Abstraction is for humans; abstraction is bloat for microprocessors.
They don't suck at everything; they just suck at managing. Its because they think their excellence in academia and theory means they don't have to learn from lessons in real life. They're constantly reinventing the wheel when it comes to business and human resource management.
Its common sense. There's almost no amount of money that Google can throw at their autonomous car lead developers that can match a tech startup. It implies there's an amount of generous salary that will discourage developers from going startup. But Google hires alpha developers who understand what it means to be a successful startup.
I really don't even believe Google is the cutting edge of autonomous car development. I'm guessing its Tesla, because they have the closest thing to a functioning autonomous car. Its probably a story planted by Google and other leading autonomous car companies that just want to drive down the salaries they currently pay to their employees in this field. At this point, Google is probably holding back progress, because they want a surefire profitable model without going through all the regulatory and civil litigation its going to require to roll it out.
I look at computer languages as a designed tool to best express what the programmer wants accomplished. If the programmer has to conform to the tool, or recreate the wheel every time they program something, or have to relearn how to do things in the language in order to do something useful, then its not a good tool/language. C has the ability to interface with assembly, and it has some higher level abstractions which makes programming easier than assembly. But for a 1K chip, you probably have to discard stuff like stdio just to get code to fit in that space. And while its easier to get a C programmer to do something useful for that chip (because at least they know C), that C programmer will probably have to learn a boatload of esoterica (ways of doing things) for that environment to be an effective developer. If the programmer is the least bit sloppy, the C compiler will allow a completed binary to be larger than the available working environment. Therefore, C is not a language defined to help a programmer create code while the language helps manage the environment's constraints. (I wish I knew what the term was...) Ideally, there should be language for 1K chip environments to significantly ease development, but I guess assembler would be the only alternative that could fit the bill (unless you can use FORTH).
Regardless of C falling in popularity (if legitimate) it's unlikely to be buried any time in the next 50 years given its use in the core of everything from OSs to 1K microcontroller firmware.
Just like COBOL, although I still think that COBOL programs will decline in percentage of business computing as time passes. As a sidenote, I find it sad that C is used in 1K microcontroller firmware. Where would it payoff in either space efficiency or developer "friendliness"?
You may have blown it if you're not going in as an independent contractor (which you'd at least need to be an S Corporation). But a lot of what you're describing that you would like to do can be written off your federal taxes. If the employer is paying for all of this, then they're the one that gets the tax break. Talk to your tax preparer (who also would be "useful" for an S corporation. But a real small business tax guy, not some dork at H&R Block).
He can be sane, but it doesn't change the fact that he damaged his company with his actions. Making common expressions of violent imagery is not reflective of actual fantacizing, and firing/u/spez's ass is the solution, not the problem.
You are a fool, or a clever public media spin doctor. No one thinks/u/spez is going to modify their posts. But they are totally aware that government or corporate psy ops departments are capable of modifying or burying their posted speech, in order to manipulate a public consensus. That's why no one believes a corporate product forum when its known they delete negative statements against a product or the company. Tough luck reddit shareholders.
Slashdot Mirror
As do I. But what Trump is doing is implementing the most venal, dumbest possible way to do this. And it still won't work, its already been tried. Any successful plan has to include financially savaging employers for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Most immigrants are only coming here for the "lucrative" job. They were running out of the country when the banks collapsed in 2008 and the economy shut down.
There's a difference between addressing immigration reform and spitefully destroying people's lives and shitcanning our economy just to make condenscending dickbags with anonymity feel smug.
Or even a legal immigrant who came here thinking Americans would come to eventually accept them and their children, but instead had Trump provide encouragement and legal indifference for another generation (20 years) of racist xenophobia against them.
And these people have every right to wish that piece of shit was dead, or at least crack jokes about him. Trump is not a good guy. Trump may not be an intellectual leader of the alt-right, but that doesn't give him the pass George W. Bush's gets for his clusterfuck of a presidency.
Being the first space tourists does not require a lottery, but an auction with prerequisites.
1) Eventually a self-sustaining human colony on Mars. Which then ensures humanity or civilization won't be wiped out by a space rock every 300K(?) years.
2) Having the self-sustaining colony on Mars also means more living area to populate with humans. Not prime real estate (unless you're dystopian), but possibly better than living in your toilet on Earth.
3) Once man can sustain themselves indefinitely outside of Earth, it may become lucrative to collect useful materials outside of Earth, process it in space, manufacture something useful in space, and then send that to Earth. Yeah, automated robots could do that too, but it may be too difficult to manage/repair those devices the further out you go for materials away from Earth.
...when all that effort could be saved by building an automated space fabrication facility and sending that to a Lagrange point, thus totally avoiding the kinetic expense landing and launching out of the Moon's gravity well.
But you can't plan to go to Mars with that plan. You have to spend decades first developing the robotics to do sophisticated manufacture in space/Moon. Then you're sending that factory to the Moon, rather than Mars. Oh yeah, there's no (known) iron or aluminum, or anything useful, other than sand (silica) to mine on the Moon. Then somehow you have to be able to mine an asteroid, when most asteroids are in an orbit farther than Mars but before Jupiter. Which means you'll probably be doing that with an automated robot as well. Unless you want to spend money developing a habitat module that can sustain human life in space/Moon without a radiation shield for about a year. And that's assuming there are asteroids with useful materials to mine within rocket distance of the Earth that is less than the distance to Mars. And where will be the savings in rocket launches or Earth materials for this scenario?
1) going to Mars from the moon would be simpler, and cheaper.
No, it would not! Based on what rationale? You'd still have to build and rocket most of those Mars station components on Earth. The Moon doesn't have known deposits of iron or aluminum to smelt and manufacture into useful devices by robots on the Moon. Even if there was enough harvestable water on the Moon, done by robot, you could still send an automated robot to Mars to do the same chore.
2) mining on asteroids would be cheaper
Again, in what sense? The only way it would be cheaper would be to process the ore on the Moon, and ship it to Earth, but it would still be even cheaper to process the ore from a space station located a a Lagrange point.
It blows my mind how people here claim to understand basic science and a layman level of engineering, but can't comprehend the basics of orbital mechanics. (It doesn't take much more energy to go to Mars rather than the Moon. They're about equal in difficulty to do at this point in space science/engineering.), or how projects require money to be developed (there's no money saved testing a sustainable hab module on the Moon, rather than testing it on Mars.) Why are people so convinced that Spain needed a colony on the Azores before they could send Columbus to the "New World"?
Guess why I think Space Nutters are misanthropic, maladjusted, religious nutcases?
Because you're a moron.
Directed space nuttery can result in new scientific and engineering knowledge that can be applied to desirable outcomes, whether its a self-sustaining colony on Mars, or abundant energy collected from satellites and microwaved to an Earth based collector, or harvestable H3 on the Moon to power a fusion power plant, or whatever.
Universal healthcare just extends the life of organic beings that has to die anyway. UBI may not even be economically sustainable or "desirable" in a capitalist society, and basically rewards people that can't do anything useful for existing. I'm not sure if a leisure society could have significantly desirable economic or cultural results. I'll withhold my condescension on that.
Maybe someone who is interested in lunar development should buy some Falcon 9 or Heavy launches and just make it happen?
People brighter than Perens with more money realize that the Moon is just a big homogenous, inert rock orbiting the Earth, currently with no significant, self-sustaining, financial enterprise to exploit. A permanent moon base would merely be a giant, useless suck of money until the rich guy/nation stops paying to sustain it. Then it would be a lifeless, inert moon base.
It doesn't take much more rocket propelled energy to go to Mars, rather the Moon. At least Mars has a better potential to self-sustain a colony there (more material to work with). Its just a matter of working out the engineering, which isn't cheaper if its done on the Moon first.
and it could be self sustaining.
Self sustaining, in what sense? You'd still have to ship organic chemicals (dry form, of course) to act as nutrient agent for the plants you'd be growing to consume. Is there actually enough moon/space material that's readily collectable to keep producing a synthesized atmosphere and water indefinitely? And what would you be doing on the Moon that would result in interest to indefinitely fund all the materials and operations necessary to support a moonbase doing very little?
Mars on the other hand, is big and materially diverse enough to provide for the chemical agents to actually be self-sustaining. People could travel, produce & raise kids, and live their entire life on Mars, once there's a sustainable engineering model. The Moon, on the other hand, would still need regular shipments of organic chemicals to keep its hydroponics sustained. Once Earth stops paying for that, or that massive rock ends all civilization on Earth, forget about the Moon having a self-sustaining colony.
No way I'd make a week long trip in a capsule risking death, couped up with that asshole Larry Ellison.
Basically, billionaires that feel old enough that they're willing to risk dying on an insufficiently tested space vehicle. (If I were old, and a billionaire, I'd seriously consider it, if I could negotiate certain preconditions.) Makes me wonder how many billionaires are willing to spend a fraction of that money to subsidize someone willing to risk Elon Musk's 2017 time schedule.
He/she could be a non-native looking forward to a prosperous life in the USA. Or he/she could be a victim of two enterprising (illegal) immigrants, and be forced to exiled from the land he/she was raised since a toddler, to a poverty stricken place where he/she can't even speak the language. Or even a legal immigrant who came here thinking Americans would come to eventually accept them and their children, but instead had Trump provide encouragement and legal indifference for another generation (20 years) of racist xenophobia against them. Either way, they're justified in hating Trump's guts.
You're the fucking moron. And a fucking Anonymous Coward to boot.
There's an added attraction for the first two people who "outspend" a seat on that first rocket: A minor note in the history books, either as the first two commercial passengers to successfully enjoy a space tourism junket, or the first two fools who overpaid to die in a space tourism junket.
If Google stops supporting them, the backlash will be pretty severe.
Ridiculous. Any chromebook that is updateable can have its OS replaced with Andromeda.
K&R C could be considered portable assembly at one time (but a bloated one). Those days are long gone. Abstraction is for humans; abstraction is bloat for microprocessors.
Except most microcontrollers don't implement embedded java.
They don't suck at everything; they just suck at managing. Its because they think their excellence in academia and theory means they don't have to learn from lessons in real life. They're constantly reinventing the wheel when it comes to business and human resource management.
Its common sense. There's almost no amount of money that Google can throw at their autonomous car lead developers that can match a tech startup. It implies there's an amount of generous salary that will discourage developers from going startup. But Google hires alpha developers who understand what it means to be a successful startup.
I really don't even believe Google is the cutting edge of autonomous car development. I'm guessing its Tesla, because they have the closest thing to a functioning autonomous car. Its probably a story planted by Google and other leading autonomous car companies that just want to drive down the salaries they currently pay to their employees in this field. At this point, Google is probably holding back progress, because they want a surefire profitable model without going through all the regulatory and civil litigation its going to require to roll it out.
I look at computer languages as a designed tool to best express what the programmer wants accomplished. If the programmer has to conform to the tool, or recreate the wheel every time they program something, or have to relearn how to do things in the language in order to do something useful, then its not a good tool/language. C has the ability to interface with assembly, and it has some higher level abstractions which makes programming easier than assembly. But for a 1K chip, you probably have to discard stuff like stdio just to get code to fit in that space. And while its easier to get a C programmer to do something useful for that chip (because at least they know C), that C programmer will probably have to learn a boatload of esoterica (ways of doing things) for that environment to be an effective developer. If the programmer is the least bit sloppy, the C compiler will allow a completed binary to be larger than the available working environment. Therefore, C is not a language defined to help a programmer create code while the language helps manage the environment's constraints. (I wish I knew what the term was...) Ideally, there should be language for 1K chip environments to significantly ease development, but I guess assembler would be the only alternative that could fit the bill (unless you can use FORTH).
Regardless of C falling in popularity (if legitimate) it's unlikely to be buried any time in the next 50 years given its use in the core of everything from OSs to 1K microcontroller firmware.
Just like COBOL, although I still think that COBOL programs will decline in percentage of business computing as time passes. As a sidenote, I find it sad that C is used in 1K microcontroller firmware. Where would it payoff in either space efficiency or developer "friendliness"?
You may have blown it if you're not going in as an independent contractor (which you'd at least need to be an S Corporation). But a lot of what you're describing that you would like to do can be written off your federal taxes. If the employer is paying for all of this, then they're the one that gets the tax break. Talk to your tax preparer (who also would be "useful" for an S corporation. But a real small business tax guy, not some dork at H&R Block).
He can be sane, but it doesn't change the fact that he damaged his company with his actions. Making common expressions of violent imagery is not reflective of actual fantacizing, and firing /u/spez's ass is the solution, not the problem.
I like the new digg. Not so sure about reddit anymore.
I think its what makes it enjoyable. Irony is entertaining.
You are a fool, or a clever public media spin doctor. No one thinks /u/spez is going to modify their posts. But they are totally aware that government or corporate psy ops departments are capable of modifying or burying their posted speech, in order to manipulate a public consensus. That's why no one believes a corporate product forum when its known they delete negative statements against a product or the company. Tough luck reddit shareholders.